Will instead include proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in General Plan Update process; could come back in “a year or so”

“We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.” – Mayor Pro Tem Freitas

“Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, March 10, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1, with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting against, to postpone a decision on the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and include it in the General Plan Update process. Since, according to City staff, that process will take one to three years, it could allow enough time for the remaining proposed, new-home subdivisions in the Sand Creek Focus Area to be approved. That’s the part of Antioch where upscale homes have been planned for more than 30 years to meet the higher-end portion of the city’s housing mix.

It’s also the part of Antioch that Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said he wants excluded from the ordinance.

The expectations have been the Sand Creek area homes will attract business owners to Antioch to create local jobs and employ residents in the 200-acre East Lone Tree Specific Plan area off Laurel Road near the J.C. Penney store, and allow them to escape the commutes on Highway 4 and Vasco Road. Only four more potential developments on the west side of Deer Valley Road including the Richland Communities-Leung, Zeka Ranch and Oak Hill Park LLC/Richfield-Bridle Hills projects, and one on the east side, referred to as the Chen property, located south of the Kaiser Antioch Medical Center and west of Dozier-Libbey Medical High School, are remaining to be submitted, processed and/or approved.

In addition, two more new single-family housing projects on Somersville Road, known as Rialto Place, and on James Donlon Blvd., known as Sorrento Village, are also in process, and would probably be approved before an ordinance is adopted. That would leave mostly in-fill, single-family housing and multi-family housing projects throughout the city to which an ordinance would apply. Those include five of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District affordable apartment projects and multiple other projects, including the currently on-hold Rancho Meadows on the north side of Antioch, that have yet to be built, as well. (See related articles here and here)

Following an hour of the staff presentation and public input, mostly by representatives of out-of-town organizations and a few residents in support, and opposition from one resident, the council then took up the matter for another hour asking questions of staff and the consultant and discussing it before the vote. (See council meeting video beginning at the 5:27:30 mark)

Council Questions, Discussion & Comments

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the IHO would apply to developments already approved. Planning Manager Zoe Merideth responded, “This would be for new development moving forward.”

Asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the point in time when the ordinance would be applicable to a new housing project, she responded, “It would generally be deemed complete also under SB330 if you file a complete preliminary development application, that vests your rights at the time…which are most housing projects at this point.”

Torres-Walker, referring to the comments of local homeless and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker, was concerned “the ordinance would essentially do nothing based on the developments that are currently in the pipeline.”

“Is it a paperweight?” she asked.

“No,” was the reply from Greg Goodfellow, Associate Principal for PlaceWorks, the consulting firm that helped develop the City’s proposed IHO. “The big picture for me, here is to think of the IHO as one tool in such a large shed of tools for affordable housing.”

“I don’t do things to be symbolic. I want this to mean something,” the councilwoman said.

“My point is it’s not going to do everything,” Goodfellow responded.

Mayor Pro Tem Freitas then asked about the chart staff provided in their presentation showing that “there are only seven cities listed” that have IHO’s and that most had much lower percentages than the 15 percent recommended by staff and 20 percent requested by some members of the public and organization representatives.

“That’s not all of them. Those were just examples,” the consultant stated. “I don’t know the exact number. I’m sorry.”

Freitas then mentioned, “The City would have to hire three to six individuals to oversee this,” and the fact the City is facing deficits this and next year. “Where would we get the money?” he asked. “Would we get it out of the (IHO) Trust? The Trust can’t pay those fees?”

“No,” Goodfellow responded. “This IHO…could be taken care of with the leadership of existing staff.”

Part of the costs of the annual review for the program would be covered by developer fees Merideth explained.

A discussion over adequate staffing for all housing programs in the city ensued.

Freitas then asked about the need outlined on page 8 of the staff report for “additional building height” to accommodate density increases “required to make rental projects feasible” and “potential parking regulation exemptions.”

“What concerns me is engineering says, even if you approve this project, you are at Level F for traffic. That’s gridlock,” the councilman stated. He was referring to, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Level of service for traffic flow, which measures automobile congestion and travel time delay, on a scale of A, which is the best, to F, which is the worst.

“I’m concerned that the qualify of life in Antioch will deteriorate,” Freitas added. “The citizens of Antioch I know, they don’t want to have high-density, three- and four-story buildings. They don’t.”

“Antioch, historically, since I was born here, has always been a haven for affordable housing,” he continued. “Yes, I know it’s screwed up, now. But is it going to help us or hurt us?”

“We are now going to be doing the General Plan, number one,” Freitas stated. “Number two, we do have Senate Bill 300, Senate Bill 330 and now we have a proposal on inclusionary housing. We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.”

“The reality is, we do have an issue of affordability,” he said. “My feeling is, this is not the place, tonight to make that decision. Our legal requirement is to do the study. We have fulfilled that. But I believe we fold it in to the General Plan review.”

“I want staff to tell me how are we going to oversee this. How are we going to implement this. We have no plan,” Freitas continued. “It’s just a policy, let’s do it, let’s put it in. That’s irresponsible as far as I’m concerned.”

“It’s an amazing study,” he said. “I just think it would be wrong to approve this tonight.”

Freitas Says Ordinance Shouldn’t Apply to Sand Creek Area Developments

“The other problem to me is….quote, unquote, it is citywide,” Freitas said about another of his concerns with the ordinance. “I spent three years of my life doing the last General Plan (which was adopted in 2003 when he previously served as mayor)…and we consciously made a decision that there are parts of our community we don’t want high rises, we don’t want high-density. We want executive housing primarily in the area which was Urban Area number one, the Sand Creek Area. I don’t think this should be applied citywide.”

“We need to make some qualitative judgments and some areas I don’t think it should apply,” he reiterated. “Because I think cities want the whole gamut…from executive housing to absolutely affordable housing.”

“I guess I’m frustrated with this. I think it’s the wrong approach. I think we need to delay this,” Freitas stated.  “I think we need to fold it into the General Plan and do a much better job of how we’re going to pay for this because it’s not here. Reading this report scares me more than anything with how we’re going to financially do it and the exemptions that are being called out.”

“Thank you for letting me rant and rave,” he concluded to laughter from Torres-Walker and others. “I’m OK. I feel good,” he said with a smile on his face.

Torres-Walker States Her Support

The District 1 councilwoman then said, “I support this. I always have. Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be. I know there is definitely NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) that exists in the city. I know there are places people do not want this kind of housing and we have to figure things out. I think this is important.”

Then speaking of the staffing issue to support the proposed IHO and City’s other housing programs Torres-Walker concluded, “I don’t think residents who are trying to afford to live in Antioch should have to suffer because we haven’t figured out our institutional challenges.”

Wilson Supports Inclusionary Housing “Whenever” Council Votes

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke next saying about Torres-Walker’s comments, “a lot of it I agree with.” Then to Freitas she said, “I get your frustration…but on the other hand we need affordable housing. I hear about people who are either couch surfing, living in their homes, living on the street and they have a job. We need to do something. I get we need to have a plan with programs that are going to work, be successful and be maintainable. We need to do something for housing to be affordable.”

“I support this. Regardless, if we vote on it today or whenever, I’m in support of inclusionary housing,” Wilson concluded.

Rocha Supports “the Concept” But Approving it Now Would be “Winging It”

Rocha spoke next saying, “I support the concept all along. But I have more questions and concerns about…how we do it right, how we structure it.”

“So, if we’re going to vote tonight, my answer would be ‘no’,” he stated. “If we’re going to have staff look at it, get some feedback to look at how we can make it feasible, workable for us, with staffing, with all of the questions that have come up, then I can consider that.”

“Looking at this, tonight, I can’t support this vote, tonight based on so many questions and concerns,” Rocha continued. “Otherwise, I think we’re just winging it.”

Freitas then said, “I’m generally supportive, but, you know, we have to do it right. We all support affordability. In my opinion, this is too critical to screw up.”

Staff Says General Plan Update Will Take “Two to Three Years”

Torres-Walker then asked staff, “How long is it going to take to finish the General Plan?”

Interim Community Development and Economic Development Director David Storer responded, “We’re saying anywhere from two to three years depending on the process.”

Bernal Also Supports Including IHO with General Plan Process

Mayor Bernal then weighed in saying, “My biggest concern with this…is the fact that we’ve been thrown for a loop when it comes to the housing legislation that has come out of Sacramento. We’ve only had two projects approved, we have eight or 10 in the pipeline. We have three-story units going up right in the back of residential on Golf Course Road which is going to be a nightmare firestorm.” He was referring to the Joyfield at Lakeview Center Apartments for extremely-low, very-low and low-income residents.

“So, we don’t even know the impacts of current legislation on our city let alone adding one more moving part to it that’s just going to complicate things,” the mayor continued. “The other part of this, and I keep harping on it, is we need to get our budget under control…in order to know where we’re headed as a city, how we’re going to afford to pay for things like extra staffing.”

“The other thing that has always frustrated me is RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) numbers are just dumped on us,” Bernal stated. “We’re going after these arbitrary numbers that a group in the larger Bay Area (speaking of MTC & ABAG) has come up with and I don’t know if that’s what’s best for our community.”

“I know it’s what we’re mandated to do but I don’t know if that’s best for our community. That’s where the General Plan comes in and I think that folding this in with the General Plan process…,” concurring with Freitas. “Because what the General Plan process is going to do is tell us how many units we have left in our 25-year building sphere that we’re going to be building, that then we would know how many units we’re going to get out of this. Right now, there isn’t any certainty of that.”

“My point is I think there are a lot more questions than there are answers,” he continued. “I think there are a lot of moving parts, right now, when it comes to Sacramento, development and how it’s going to impact Antioch with so much vacant land and so much residential opportunity, and I just think this would add one more element of complication to it.”

“So, I’m not going to be supportive of moving it to a date certain…because I don’t see the benefit or the purpose of it,” Bernal concluded.

Housing in Land Use Element of General Plan Update Could Be Done in “a Year or So”

Freitas then confirmed with Storer, that the first of seven issues to be dealt with during the General Plan Update is the Land Use Element, which includes housing policy, and said, “Some of the questions we’re all asking…I think we could move that forward…we could bring back the IHO within a year or so for action.”

Bernal then advocated to “bring it back organically when it’s time.”

Freitas then asked City Manager Bessie Scott, “Does the city manager want to offer any words of wisdom?” to which she simply replied, “Um, no,” to laughter from the council members and those still in the audience as it was after 11:50 p.m.

“That’s called a wise city manager,” Bernal stated in jest.

Freitas then made the motion to move the item off-calendar, “with the understanding that the General Plan will prioritize this entire discussion.” Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Torres-Walker voting “no”.

Range from $37,500 to $725,000 paid to 18 plaintiffs last year, but lawsuit not finalized; two who received large payouts are serving 19 and 20 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter

By Allen D. Payton

While one portion of the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City of Antioch, specific police officers and former chiefs was settled for just attorney’s fees, 23 plaintiffs also settled their claims last year with 18 receiving payouts costing millions.

During a press conference held on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, John Burris, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs, called the settlement “historic” and a “win-win” and explained, “There were two parts of the case, one involving the individuals, which we settled, 23.”

Although the settlement announced that day only cost the City plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees for close to $155,000, the City paid out $5,210,000 in 18 of the 23 settled cases that were never announced publicly, nor information provided until now. Some of the cases were past the statute of limitations so those plaintiffs received a lesser payout.

On Monday, February 9, 2026, the City responded to a Public Records Act request submitted by the Herald on Dec. 20, for all of the settlement documents related to the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City showing the names of the parties, how much each was paid including the City’s portion versus the amounts paid by the insurance pool to which the City contributes. In addition, City Manager Bessie Scott’s prepared remarks offered at the press conference were also requested.

The settlements are associated with Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH), a class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and chiefs. As previously reported, Allen is one of four suspects convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson. He and a variety of other plaintiffs claimed civil rights violations by the officers.

Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and associates filed the lawsuit in April 2023, naming five then-current and former officers, for their racist and other offensive texts and mistreatment of citizens, plus, three past police chiefs, the City of Antioch and Does 1-100. (See related articles here and here)

Plaintiffs in the suit included Shagoofa Khan, Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Zavala, the son of Guadalupe Zavala, who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by police in 2021 after a seven-hour stand-off with police (whose last name is listed in the lawsuit as Savala), as well as Allen and Terryonn Pugh, whose murder case resulted in the release of the texts.

Honored as the 2017 Antioch Youth of the Year, Khan was the subject of one of the vile texts, was one of the lead protesters in the city in 2020, and arrested a few times including at former Chief Tammany Brooks’ farewell party in September 2021, and another time for felony arson in January 2021, the incident for which she was granted a settlement payment by the City.

Allen and Pugh are serving 19 and 20 years in state prison, respectively, for attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter

Settlement Details in Order of Date Signed

Shaquille Hilliard Settlement Agreement dated March 10, 2025, for $37,500 over an incident on Jan.13, 2020.

Daniel Mackin Settlement Agreement dated March 10, 2025, for $650,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022. (See related articles here, here and here).

Mandingo Cain Settlement Agreement dated March 28, 2025, for $110,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Marcell Lewis Settlement Agreement dated April 1, 2025, for $55,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Gregorio Yarborough Settlement Agreement dated April 1, 2025, for $400,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Adam Carpenter Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $50,000 over an incident on Nov. 3, 2020. (See related article)

Shagoofa Khan Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $150,000 over an incident on Jan.15, 2021. (See related article)

Jamari Allen Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $600,000 over an incident on Aug. 21, 2021.

Joshua Butler Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $65,000 over an incident on Feb. 3, 2022.

Terry Robinson, Jr. Settlement Agreement dated April 10, 2025, for $275,000 over an incident on July 1, 2022.

Danyel Lacy Settlement Agreement dated May 15, 2025, for $37,500 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Dreshawn Jackson Settlement Agreement dated May 29, 2025, for $225,000 over an incident on Feb. 12, 2018.

Kardell Smith Settlement Agreement dated June 11, 2025, for $650,000 over an incident in 2019.

Jessie Wilson Settlement Agreement dated June 20, 2025, for $475,000 over an incident on Aug. 24, 2021.

Dejon Richards Settlement Agreement dated June 20, 2025, for $80,000 over an incident on Sept. 21, 2023.

Quincy Mason Settlement Agreement dated July 23, 2025, for $125,000 over incidents on Sept. 12, 2018, and Dec. 1, 2020.

Additional Settlements for Two Serving Sentences for Voluntary Homicide

Terryonn Pugh Settlement Agreement dated April 11, 2025, for $500,000 and Trent Allen Settlement Agreement dated May 11, 2025, for $725,000 over an incident on March 31, 2021. (See related articles here and here)

As previously reported, on March 9, 2021, Terryonn Deshawn Pugh, Trent Allen, Eric James Windom and Keyshawn Malik McGee engaged in a shooting in the City of Antioch wherein they discharged firearms at a vehicle in a residential neighborhood. The barrage of bullets killed Arnold Marcel Hawkins and injured another person.

The four defendants were charged on a six-count felony complaint with enhancements in November 2021 and on May 6, 2024, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office reached a resolution in the 2021 murder of Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson.

In resolving the case, the four defendants entered pleas of no contest to the following:

Terryonn Pugh: No contest on two counts of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter – with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 20 years in state prison.

Trent Allen: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for an unrelated robbery. Allen was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.

Eric Windom: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for a robbery that is unrelated to this case. Windom was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.

Keyshawn McGee: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm in both the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges. McGee was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 13 years, 8 months in state prison.

The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. (See related article)

City Manager’s Press Conference  Comments

During the press conference on Dec. 19, 2025, City Manager Scott said, “I want to start by acknowledging what this period has meant for people in Antioch. The last few years have been difficult and, for many residents, deeply unsettling. Trust was strained. Confidence in institutions took a serious hit. Many in our community have carried that weight in ways that don’t show up in headlines.

“Today reflects the culmination of a long, demanding process. It has taken ongoing effort, patience, and a willingness to stay engaged even when it was uncomfortable. I want to recognize the people who kept showing up and kept working.

“I’m grateful to John Burris and his team. We have approached this from different sides, but there was a shared understanding that Antioch needed a path forward that is durable and serious. That kind of alignment does not erase differences. It makes progress possible.

“I also want to thank our City staff and legal team for moving this work forward with discipline and care, and I want to recognize the community, residents, advocates, and neighborhood voices who insisted the City meet a higher standard and kept that expectation in front of us.

“I appreciate the Antioch Police Oversight Commission and City leadership for supporting forward movement, and for the decision to hire a Chief who reflects the values this moment requires. Leadership sets the tone and over time, it shapes culture.

“Today is about refusing to let the City remain defined by the failures and controversy that brought us to this point. Antioch deserves a government that listens, adjusts, and delivers. It deserves public service that is fair, professional, and consistent across every neighborhood and every interaction.

“As we move into the next chapter, our focus is steady execution, staying transparent about progress, and earning trust through sustained performance and measurable improvements.”

See KTVU FOX2 video of the Dec. 19th press conference.

Questions for Council, Staff

On February 9th, the day the PRA request was partially fulfilled, an email was sent to City Manager Bessie Scott, Mayor Ron Bernal and all four council members, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger who worked on the settlements, City Clerk Michael Mandy and City PIO Jaden Baird.

They were asked to provide the breakdown of how much was paid by the City for each of the 18 settlements and how much was paid by the insurance pool.

They were also informed that during the press conference attorney John Burris said there had been 23 cases settled and asked  for the information about the other five.

The PDF’s of each of the 18 settlements provided were incomplete as they do not include the signatures of the City’s legal representative on the settlements showing the dates each was finally settled. The final versions with the signatures and dates signed by the City’s legal representative were requested.

They were also asked why the City didn’t announce each of the settlements when they occurred last March, April, May, June and July based on the dates the agreements were signed by the plaintiffs and a representative of John Burris’ law firm; why did they wait so long to provide the details to the public and only after a PRA request was made and how is that being transparent.

Finally, they were asked why the lawsuit is still referred to as “Existing Litigation” and was discussed during the Closed Session of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10th if it’s all been settled.

Since no response was received from any of the city council or staff members, an email with the same requests and questions was, again sent on Feb. 24 and included City Finance Director Dawn Merchant in hopes she could share the amounts the City paid out on each of the 18 settled lawsuits and how much was paid by the insurance pool.

A meeting was then held with City Clerk Michael Mandy on Feb. 25th in another attempt to get the PRA request completely fulfilled. But still, no response was received.

Finally, all five council members and aforementioned City staff were emailed again on Feb. 26th, and included then-Interim City Attorney Derek Cole and Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia.

Interim City Attorney Says Lawsuit Settlement “Not Currently Finalized”

On Friday, February 27, 2026, Cole responded, “In response, I note that much of what you ask about in your email are questions for comment, not requests for records under the Public Records Act.  This consolidated lawsuit remains active as the settlement agreement is not currently finalized and executed.  Therefore, neither our office nor City Administration believe it is appropriate to comment on your questions at this time.

“Further, to the extent you have stated proper requests for public records, we note that the City does not have an obligation until after the litigation has concluded to produce any response records.  (See Gov. Code sec. 7927.200(a).)  

“We do note that, to date, the City’s employment risk manager has paid nearly all of the legal fees and litigation costs for the consolidated action.  The City will have to reimburse these expenses after the conclusion of the consolidated action, but as of this time, the City does not have information it can share on what its ultimate share of the litigation expenses will be. 

“We also note that the City has agreed to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees for this case and we do provide a copy of the order the parties entered into to effectuate that agreement.  The amount of the attorney fees to be paid is stated in the order.”

The order entitled, “Attorneys’ Fees Agreement” and dated Jan. 8, 2026, shows the City paid Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount $154,902.50 to Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy, LLP.

By Marc Joffe

Bay Area transit agencies are seeking another half-cent sales tax in November. While most of the $980 million a year in new revenue will go to BART, Muni and AC Transit, smaller agencies will also receive extra tax money, evading the need to reform. Contra Costa County will continue to have multiple bus operators, including two sharing the territory east of the Caldecott. Before voters agree to pour more public money into this hodgepodge of agencies, they should ask whether there are opportunities for reform.

Central and Eastern Contra Costa County are currently split between two distinct bus agencies. Tri Delta Transit covers eastern communities like Antioch and Brentwood, while County Connection serves central hubs including Walnut Creek and Concord. Together, they cover a combined service area of more than 800,000 residents. Both feed riders into BART, yet they maintain completely separate executive teams, planning departments, procurement offices, and administrative staff. In 2024, these two agencies spent a combined $79.8 million to deliver 4.1 million bus rides at an average cost of $19.39 per trip—of which passenger fares covered just $1.33, leaving taxpayers to subsidize the remaining $18.07 per ride.

The financial unsustainability of this arrangement is glaring when looking at farebox recovery and utilization. Passenger fares cover just 7.8 percent of operating costs at County Connection and an even worse 5.5 percent at Tri Delta Transit, meaning taxpayers shoulder nearly the entire burden for systems where 40-foot buses frequently circulate with almost no one on board. The redundancy also affects riders, with Tri Delta’s Route 201X running deep into Concord and County Connection’s Route 93X crossing into Antioch.  Riders navigating this corridor face separate fare structures and schedules simply to preserve two entrenched bureaucracies where one would clearly suffice.

My recent California Policy Center analysis of the state’s 85 transit operators highlighted the need to consolidate smaller agencies to rein in administrative overhead, a problem acutely visible at County Connection. The agency employs 249 people directly and negotiates with three distinct labor unions, driving salaries and benefits to $28.7 million, which consumes 62 percent of its $46.4 million operating budget. Tri Delta Transit, conversely, demonstrates the fiscal advantages of leveraging private sector efficiencies. Rather than inflating a massive public payroll, Tri Delta contracts its bus operations to a private company, Transdev, keeping its own overhead lean while retaining fleet ownership. Tri Delta has also pioneered microtransit with its Tri MyRide app, recognizing that deploying a shared van is far more sensible than running a near-empty 40-foot bus on a fixed loop through low-density neighborhoods.

The perverse incentives of the current funding model guarantee that meaningful reform will be ignored in favor of demanding more tax revenue. Merging the two agencies under a single general manager and board, while competitively contracting all operations, could save millions in administrative, operating, and capital costs.

It is important to recognize that Contra Costa bus agencies are not providing a meaningful solution for climate change or congestion. Federal transit data cross-referenced with the Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book reveals that Contra Costa’s highly subsidized buses average just four passengers and burn 8,400 BTU of energy per passenger-mile, which is more than double the energy intensity of a typical SUV and triple that of a passenger car.  Furthermore, Google’s Environmental Insights Explorer indicates that buses account for a statistically insignificant 0.31 percent of all trips in the county, meaning that additional bus funding from the new sales tax won’t alleviate congestion on Interstate 680 or Highway 4.

Subsidized suburban transit should be viewed strictly as a social safety net for those who lack alternatives, not as a green infrastructure project or a cure for regional traffic. When voters go to the polls in November 2026, they should firmly reject the new sales tax measure. Until regional planners dismantle these redundant bureaucracies and implement competitive contracting across a unified eastern and central Contra Costa County transit network, taxpayers are merely subsidizing an inefficient status quo.

Marc Joffe is the President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

Feb. 18th Board meeting agenda includes layoffs for 104 teachers, counselors, directors, vice principals and 193 classified staff to save $38 million

By Allen D. Payton

According to Danielle Watson, a parent of a child in the Antioch Unified School District, “as of Friday, Feb. 13, the District is allegedly pink-slipping Admin staff and plans to eliminate over 100+ teachers. They are also discussing proposed cuts to Special Education staffing, including classroom aides and support staff.”

As a result, a “Peaceful Protest is planned for Tuesday morning, Feb. 17 at the school district headquarters.

“Parents are raising concerns about student safety, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) compliance, and the impact on early grades (K–5), particularly for Black and Latino students who already lag in test scores (per CAASPP – California California Assessment of Student Performance – data from prior years),” Watson continued.

“Nearly one in five AUSD students has an IEP (Individual Education Plan). Parents are asking the Board to re-evaluate cuts and share a public impact analysis prior to finalizing any decisions at the Feb. 18 Board meeting,” she shared. “They are no longer negotiating with Special Education staff.”

Proposed Cuts on Board Meeting Agenda

The Board’s agenda for Wednesday night’s meeting confirms Watson’s concerns showing a total of 297 staff cuts to save almost $38 million in the annual budget.

Under Board meeting agenda Item 11.C. entitled, “Resolution 2025-26-44 Reduction or Discontinuance of Classified Services for Lack of Work or Lack of Funds” the proposed staff reductions include 192.725 FTE (full-time equivalent) positions, which “would reduce expenditures by approximately $17,881,838.79.”

Under Item11.D. entitled, “Resolution 2025-26-45 Reduction or Discontinuance of Particular Kinds of Certificated Services,” (which is numbered incorrectly) includes 60 teachers and 16 vice principals, plus counselors, directors and others. The reduction of 104 FTE would reduce expenditures by approximately $20,107,219.33.

The cuts are proposed by Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams and Associate Superintendent for Human Resources Dr. Camille Johnson. According to the staff report for the items, “In the event classified – and certificated – services need to be reduced or discontinued due to lack of work and/or lack of funds, the Education Code requires that the Board take action to reduce/eliminate positions and that affected employees be provided written notice no later than March 15.  The District will consider bumping rights, retirements, resignations, releases, and other attrition and give notice only to those employees who, according to seniority and Board-adopted tiebreak and competency criteria, are appropriate for layoff.”

“I would like for Dr. Williams to break this barrier of distrust among parents, staff and the broad community,” Watson stated. “This is her opportunity.”

Her greatest concern is about the cuts to special education teachers and para-professionals, and the safety of the students, especially those who have already demonstrated behavioral challenges.

“It’s concerning to think about the risk to teachers they’ll be causing, by forcing them to mitigate situations by themselves,” Watson said.

Several parents have sent emails to the Board and Superintendent. But as of today, Monday, February 16th, no response has been received from anyone, she shared.

The protest begins at 10 A.M. at the AUSD offices, 510 G Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.

“Califraudia” estimated at $250 billion of fraud, waste and abuse

By Jenny Rae Le Roux

SACRAMENTO, CA — Today, CAL DOGE, the unofficial California Department of Government Efficiency, launched on Jan. 26th by candidates for governor, Steve Hilton and for state controller, Herb Morgan, announced it has untangled a web of funding from the Prop 64 (state marijuana legalization law) authorized California Cannabis Tax Fund (CCTF) – supposed to be used for substance abuse prevention – that instead is building the Democrat political machine in California.

An investigation into Elevate Youth California, which is one of the financial intermediaries that received $370M from the CCTF, found that Elevate Youth distributed 517 micro-grants, with an average grant size of $700K, to multiple organizations that do nothing related to substance abuse and instead build the Democrat voter base. These organizations explicitly fund “social justice youth development”, “civic engagement”, and “power building.”

According to Prop 64 and the supposed oversight group for Elevate Youth, The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the tax is designated to support “funding and technical assistance for organizations that are developing or increasing community substance use disorder prevention, outreach and education focused on youth.” Instead, Elevate Youth is distributing funds to organizations – such as $1M for “civic engagement” to Young Invincibles, which has stated values of “Young Adult Power, Equity, Community, Collaboration, and Bold Ideas” but says and does nothing related to substance abuse prevention.

“After collecting $1 billion annually from the Cannabis Tax, that money should be spent on substance abuse prevention as stated in the law, not political organizing to keep Democrats in charge of California’s decline,” said Jenny Rae Le Roux, Director of CAL DOGE. “Funneling money through financial intermediaries to hundreds of non-profits that spend those funds on partisan Democrat political organizing must stop, and the age of accountability must begin.”

Other grantee organizations, such as the Jakara Movement Grant, which was provided $1M for Sikh youth empowerment and voter registration, and Asian Refugees United, which was granted $800K for LGBTQ+ Asian Storytelling, have no connection to substance abuse prevention.

Estimates $250 Billion of Fraud, Waste and Abuse

Based on a preliminary review by Hilton, and his running mate Morgan, entitled “Califraudia”, California’s exposure to fraud, waste, and abuse across major state programs is estimated at $250 billion. This estimate, based on independent analysis, underscores the urgent need for formal audits, investigations, and enforcement as a matter of basic fiscal responsibility.

Hilton added, “In seven days of work, CAL DOGE has already uncovered more fraud than Gavin Newsom and his regime have done in their seven years in power. And we’re not even elected yet! This is exactly why I set up CAL DOGE in the first place, to expose fraud and corruption in the system so we can act to stop it on day one. Democrats and their shadow network of leftist front organizations are stealing taxpayers’ money for their own partisan ends. We pay the highest taxes in the country yet get the worst results – and now we are finding out why, and where our money is really going. There is much more to come from CAL DOGE and its work will play a huge part in ending 16 years of Democrat one party rule this November.”

Following are additional details on the investigation and the team that connected the dots:

Californians Voted For the $370 Million in Cannabis Tax Dollars to Fund “Drug Prevention.” Instead, the Tax Bankrolls Leftwing Political Activism.

When California voters approved Proposition 64 in 2016, they were told cannabis tax revenue would fund youth substance abuse prevention. Six years and $370.25 million later, Rhetor’s AI-powered forensic audit — conducted in partnership with CalDOGE — reveals where that money actually went: into a sprawling network of 517 grants funding political organizing, voter registration drives and “social justice youth development,” all administered by a single nonprofit intermediary operating as a shadow agency of the state.

How the Money Moves

The California Department of Health Care Services does not distribute Proposition 64 cannabis tax funds directly to community organizations. Instead, they issue a master contract to The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, a 501(c)(3) that has become the de facto bank for the state’s equity, prevention and youth funding.

The Center at Sierra Health Foundation retains 15 to 20 percent in administrative fees then sub-grants the remaining funds to community-based organizations through its own application process.

The state does not pick who gets the grants. The intermediary does, bypassing the rigorous procurement processes mandated for direct government contracts under the Department of General Services and State Controller oversight.

The result is a three-stage pipeline — master contract to fiscal intermediary to sub-grants — that creates layers of separation between taxpayer dollars and their ultimate use.

Lining the Governor’s Pockets

The pipeline starts with the governor’s office, and the relationship between The Center at Sierra Health Foundation and the governor extends well beyond a standard contract. According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s Behested Payment Transparency Report (pg.19-20), in 2020 alone, Sierra Health Foundation was the third-largest payor of behested payments statewide at $14,747,724 and the single largest payee of behested payments statewide at $30,869,901 — payments Newsom solicited from private companies.

Newsom himself was the top behesting official in the state that year at $226.8 million total (pg. 20), and Sierra Health Foundation ranked among his top three financial partners in the system.

The financial trajectory of The Center at Sierra Health Foundation tracks accordingly. IRS Form 990 filings show The Center’s revenue exploded from $11.8 million in 2018 to $197 million in 2024 — with 96.5 percent of that revenue coming from government contracts. The Center’s CEO Chet Hewitt’s total compensation rose from $407,726 to $612,730 over the same period, a 50 percent increase that mirrors the growth in state contract volume almost perfectly. Behested payments are legal in California with no dollar limits, but the California Fair Political Practices Commission itself flagged the scale as concerning enough to implement new transparency regulations.

The Grants Say the Quiet Part Out Loud

The pipeline flows from the governor’s office to the The Center at Sierra Health Foundation, the fiscal intermediary, who determines grant recipients. Rather than awarding grants to recipients that qualify for Proposition 64’s original purpose — fighting substance abuse — The Center uses Prop. 64’s taxpayer dollars to fund leftwing activist organizations.

Elevate Youth, for example, the most significant vertical managed by The Center, is funded exclusively by Prop. 64 taxpayer dollars. Yet Elevate Youth’s grant application form explicitly names “social justice youth development” and “civic engagement” as criteria for grantees, terms that appear nowhere in the statutory language of Prop. 64’s Youth Education, Prevention, Early Intervention, and Treatment Account.

Similarly, grant recipients, like United Way of Santa Cruz County, which was awarded $834,075.00 from Elevate Youth, focuses on “activism” and “BILPOC (Black, Indigenous, Latino, and People of Color) and LGBTQ+ youth and families.”

Voters approved cannabis tax revenue for substance abuse prevention. DHCS redefined “prevention” to include political organizing — then buried it inside the grant criteria of a nonprofit intermediary most Californians have never heard of.

Political Activism at Clinical Prices

The math exposes the disconnect.

According to the DHCS YEPEITA report, the Elevate Youth program reached 89,727 participants. Divide $370.25 million by that figure and the cost per participant is $4,126.

Actual clinical substance abuse treatment costs between $2,000 and $5,000 per patient. Elevate Youth California is charging clinical-grade prices for non-clinical projects, including “civic engagement” workshops, leadership development seminars and “community mobilizing” training. These are not treatment programs. They are organizing programs priced like treatment programs.

The Receipts

Elevate Youth’s specific grant awards make the mislabeling undeniable.

Since 2020, the Jakara Movement has received $1.8 million for “Sikh youth empowerment and prevention.” Grant activities include voter registration drives. Under the program’s framework, registering voters is classified as substance abuse prevention.

Pacific Clinics received $1 million for its “Youth IMPACT Project” — designed to “strengthen the leadership skills” of immigrant youth and “mobilize people to achieve change.”

The Center does not hide its ideological aims. They are codified in its program descriptions. The San Joaquin Valley Health Fund lists “power building” and “civic engagement” as core pillars of its health equity strategy. The Center has funded partners to conduct door-to-door canvassing for the Census and voter registration — explicitly linking political capital to health outcomes.

Hidden in a Sea of Grants.

The $370.25 million was not distributed through a handful of large, auditable contracts. It was dispersed across 517 individual grants, averaging $716,150 each.

This fragmentation makes traditional auditing nearly impossible. No single grant is large enough to trigger intensive audit scrutiny. The dispersal prevents consolidated oversight of outcomes. And because The Center — not the state — manages the sub-granting process, no single state auditor has a comprehensive view of where the money lands or what it produces.

How Rhetor Found It

This is the kind of fraud pattern that manual auditors miss by design. When grants are deliberately fragmented across hundreds of recipients, the mislabeling only becomes visible at scale.

Rhetor’s AI analysis — deployed as part of its CAL DOGE partnership — cross-referenced RFA language, grant award descriptions, cost-per-participant calculations and program outcome reporting across the full portfolio of 517 grants. The pattern detection surfaced what no individual audit could: a systematic reclassification of political organizing as public health spending, replicated across hundreds of awards.

What This Means

Californians voted for youth drug prevention. They got a taxpayer-funded political organizing infrastructure — administered by an unelected nonprofit, shielded from procurement oversight and priced at clinical treatment rates for activities that have nothing to do with substance abuse.

The receipts are public. The grant guidelines are public. The cost-per-participant math is public. None of this was hidden. It was just fragmented enough that no one was supposed to connect the dots.

Rhetor and CAL DOGE connected them. The question now is whether Californians will act or wait until Sacramento sends the next $370 million into the same pipeline.

Note: The original figure cited for Elevate Youth’s funding for the Jakara Movement was $350,000. Our updated data found that Elevate Youth has granted $1.8 million to the Jakara Movement since 2020.

See CAL DOGE Elevate Youth report.

About CAL DOGE

The CAL DOGE team includes investigators, tech advisors and citizen journalists. If you have a tip, send it to Califraud.com, a secure whistleblower platform, paid for by the Steve Hilton for Governor 2026 campaign, that allows current and former state employees and members of the public to report fraud, waste, abuse and systemic mismanagement without fear of retaliation.

CAL DOGE, named after Elon Musk’s DOGE which was formed and worked to find wasteful spending, fraud and abuse in the federal government and disbanded last November, is not the same as California DOGE, started in Nov. 2024. The new effort publishes findings, tracks spending at the program level, and advances reform proposals to restore trust, lower costs, and make California government work again for the people who pay for it. For more information about CAL DOGE see https://caldoge.rhetor.ai.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Jaden Baird, PIO, City of Antioch

ANTIOCH, CA — The City of Antioch has been awarded a $2,000,000 grant through the California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Grant Program, administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), following approval at the Board’s February 12, 2026 meeting. The funding will support expanded public safety strategies and community-based initiatives focused on prevention, intervention and long-term community stability, including coordinated partnerships and evidence-based services aimed at reducing violence and improving neighborhood safety.

The grant allows the City to initiate program activities beginning April 1, 2026. City staff will work closely with the BSCC to complete the contract process and fulfill all required onboarding and compliance steps associated with the award. Implementation will include structured reporting and performance monitoring to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes.

“This $2 million investment reflects confidence in Antioch’s approach to building safer neighborhoods through collaboration, accountability and data-informed strategies,” said City Manager Bessie Marie Scott. “These funds will allow us to expand programs that address root causes and improve outcomes for our community.”

“This award enhances our ability to deploy focused prevention and intervention strategies that reduce recidivism and improve public safety,” said Chief of Police Joe Vigil. “We will align these resources with evidence-based practices and community partnerships to ensure measurable impact.”

“This grant provides critical support for sustainable, community-centered initiatives,” said Monserrat Cabral, Director of Public Safety and Community Resources. “Our priority will be transparent implementation, performance tracking, and responsible management of these resources to ensure long-term benefits for Antioch residents.”

Additional information regarding program rollout and implementation milestones will be released as the agreement is finalized.

Application Deadline: March 5

By Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media

(Martinez, CA) –  The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking individuals with sound knowledge and experience in the field of public and private finance, to serve on the Treasury Oversight Committee (Committee) for the seat representing the Alternate County Board of Supervisors, Public Representative Seat 1, and Public Representative Seat 2 for term May 1, 2026 to April 30, 2030.

The Board of Supervisors established the Committee on November 14, 1995. The Committee’s duties include reviewing and monitoring the County Treasurer’s Annual Investment Policy, and ensuring an annual audit is conducted to determine the County Treasurer is in compliance with Government Code §§27130-27137. 

The annual audits, meeting agendas, and minutes of the Committee are available online: www.contracosta.ca.gov/690/Treasury-Oversight-Committee. Members of the Committee receive no compensation for their service.

To be considered, candidates must be County residents, may not be employed by an entity that has contributed to the reelection campaign of the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors in the previous three years, may not directly or indirectly raise money for the County Treasurer or a member of the Board of Supervisors while a member of the Committee and may not work for bond underwriters, bond counsel, security brokerages or dealers, or financial services firms with whom the County Treasurer does business, either during his or her tenure on the Committee or for one year after leaving the Committee. (Government Code §27132.3).

The Committee meets bi-annually in March and September on the third Tuesday of the month at 3:00 p.m. at 625 Court St., Room B010, Martinez, CA 94553.  Each meeting lasts approximately one hour. 

Application forms can be obtained from the Contra Costa County Clerk of the Board by calling (925) 655-2000 or by clicking on the following link: Submit an Application Online.  Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar Street, 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than Thursday, March 5, 2026, by 5 p.m.  Interviews will be held at the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) meeting, which will be conducted via Zoom at 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on March 23, 2026.  More information about the Treasury Oversight Committee can be obtained by visiting the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/690/Treasury-Oversight-Committee.

To pay for healthcare costs, offsetting cuts in federal budget

If passed, Antioch’s sales tax rate would increase 0.625% to over 10%

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular, weekly meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors decided to tell the taxpayers that they love our money by giving an early Valentine’s Day gift of a 5/8-cent sales tax increase measure on the June ballot. As a general tax, a simple majority of voters will have to give it their support in order to pass. If they do, it will generate an estimated $150 million per year for five years for a total of $750 million, intended to pay for healthcare for county residents impacted by federal budget cuts.

To adopt the sales tax ordinance a 4/5 vote of the Board was required but it passed unanimously. According to the proposed “2026 Retail Transactions (Sales) and Use Tax Ordinance”, all of the proceeds from the tax will be placed in the County’s general fund and used for purposes consistent with general fund expenditures of the County.

Timeline to the Supes Vote

In the staff presentation for the proposed ordinance, the supervisors were provided with the timeline of events that led up to their vote: On November 18, 2025, the County Administrator’s Office offered a presentation on the State Budget and impacts of H.R.1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump which cuts healthcare expenditures. Then, on December 16th, the Health, Employment and Human Services departments provided an in-depth presentation on federal and state financial impacts. That was followed on January 20th by Board direction for seeking legislation allowing for an additional 0.625% general sales tax and development of a related taxing ordinance for a period of five years. Finally, during last Tuesday, February 3rd’s Board Retreat, presentations from Beacon Economics, the County Finance Director, California Welfare Director’s Association (CWDA) and the California Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems (CAPH) were made to the Board.

Projected Sales Tax Levels by City

If the measure passes, the amount of sales tax collected in each city in the county will increase by 0.625% or 62.5 cents for each $100 spent on taxable items. The presentation shows the sales tax increase would cause 15 of the 19 cities in the county to be above the local sales tax cap, including the tax cap changes from SB1349. That law, passed in 2020, allowed Contra Costa County to impose a sales tax of up to 0.5% for transportation projects, which is exempt from the state’s 2% cap. According to an April 2025 Issue Brief on Sales and Use Tax by the California State Association of Counties, “Today, the statewide sales tax rate on eligible taxable goods is 7.25%.”

According to the CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration, “The…7.25%…is made up of three parts:

• 6.00% State
• 1.00% Local Jurisdiction
• 0.25% Local Transportation Fund

Some components of the state rate go to various local revenue funds.”

In addition, “Cities may impose a rate of up to one percent (1%).”

In California, the local sales tax cap is generally set at 3.5% above the 6% state sales tax rate for a total of 9.5%.

Following is the list of the new sales tax amounts by city if the county measure passes:

The cities with the highest current sales tax rates in the state are Alameda and Albany at 10.75%. With the proposed Contra Costa sales tax increase, El Cerrito and Pinole would have the highest sales tax rate in both the county and state at 10.875%. Antioch would have the second highest in the county at 10.375%. That does not include other sales taxes that may be passed in 2026 including the regional transit tax slated for the November 2026 ballot, which would be an additional 0.5% Countywide. (See related article)

Gioia Offers Comments on Facebook, in TV Interview

In a post by John Gioia on his Facebook page, today, Feb. 11th, he shared a video of his comments during a KTVU FOX2 interview “about why a unanimous bi-partisan Board of Supervisors is placing a 5/8 cent temporary 5-year sales tax on this June’s ballot to protect our county’s hard working families from Trump’s devastating health, human services and food assistance cuts.”

“The average Contra Costan would pay about $10 per month to prevent over 50,000 people from losing healthcare and crowding emergency rooms that we all use and protecting emergency response times,” he added.

Resolution Details

The Resolution adopted by the Board includes the following clauses, “On July 4, 2025, the President signed H.R. 1, which enacted the deepest cuts in our country’s history to Medicaid and the federal food assistance programs;

“Medicaid and Medicare are the largest sources of revenue for the County’s public health and hospital/clinic system, which provide lifesaving and essential care to county residents, including Medi-Cal beneficiaries, Medicare recipients, and uninsured residents.

“H.R. 1 immediately freezes supplemental Medicaid funding and blocks the County from drawing down expected supplemental payments, producing escalating negative impacts on the County’s budget, while simultaneously making significant eligibility changes which will cause thousands of county residents to lose health coverage;

“Lack of health coverage often causes people to delay medical care resulting in sicker residents and will increase demand for emergency care sought by residents no longer able to access preventative healthcare after losing insurance coverage;

“More than 335,000 County residents rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, and the County is the primary health-care provider for this population;

“H.R. 1 also makes substantial reductions to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), limiting food assistance relied upon by approximately 110,000 county residents;

“As a result of the federal funding cuts and rising costs, the County projects annual revenue losses exceeding $300 million by 2029;

“The combination of decreased federal funding with the increased demands on the County’s healthcare and social services threatens ALL County services, from public safety to homeless services;

“An additional five-eighths of one cent countywide general transaction and use tax (sales tax) would generate an estimated $150 million annually for five years…”

Adopted Proposed Ballot Measure Language

The resolution also includes the proposed ballot measure language pending approval by the County Clerk’s Office:

“To help Contra Costa County address deep cuts in federal funding; support critical local services such as health care, supplemental food assistance, and other general county services; and reduce the risk of closures at Contra Costa’s regional hospital and health clinics, shall Contra Costa County adopt a five-eighths of one cent general sales tax for 5 years, providing an estimated $150,000,000 annually, not available to the federal government and subject to annual audits and independent citizens oversight?”

The primary election will be held Tuesday, June 2, 2026.

For more details see Discussion Item D.2. on the Board Agenda for their meeting on Feb. 10, 2026, and watch the meeting video beginning at the 2:20:18-minute mark.